ANZAC day

[Archonsod]

That's alerady what i am saying, the British had valid reasons to hide the truth, as i've said before my first statement blaming the British was done from an ANZAC point of view, they did what they had to do but unfortunately ANZACs suffered from it too.

The high command would have been aware to be honest. It's pretty much the lot of the lower ranks to be fed such misinformation. From a soldiers point of view it sucks, but I guess you'd rather be told a lie than turn up to a battlefield where the enemy is prepared (shame it didn't work in this instance).

Well it is debatabe if Ottomans had any influence or not but they were totally alien to ANZAC soldiers, you can see in their letters that some of them actually got surprised after seeing that Turks were ordinary human beings.

Have you seen some of the Victorian depictions of Turks? Look at Balaclava for an idea of how the Anglo/French viewed the Ottomans. They had complete confidence that the Turkish artillery crews in the redoubts would not only stand firm in the face of a Russian cavalry charge, but actually repulse it. They were quite suprised when the crews did the sensible thing and abandoned their position, one commander going so far as to claim it was the high number of 'foreign arabs' distributed among the Turkish crews which was to blame. A kind of romanticising of the early Ottoman Empire and a number of other influences led to the image of the Turkish (and for that matter arabic, they didn't make much distinction between the two)warrior as being some kind of weapon of mass destruction as far as most of Europe was concerned. It was partly the reason the Ottoman Empire lasted as long as it did - the Imperial powers of Europe were still half afraid of the military prowess of the Turks, despite it being quite clear that the Empire was on the verge of collapse.

I dont have any personal idea about the landing sites' being right or wrong, i didnt look into the reports of Allies about this issue but Turks mining the beach is completely a new argument to me, i've never about heard Turks having land mines then, and shall dig further about it.

I'm not sure about landmines, but they did use sea mines. They claimed two British battleships in the bombardment before the landings (one of the reasons the shelling  was called off).

Yes really. Turks might have covered the shores more effectively if Von Sanders had listened to Mustafa Kemal, by Von Sanders' orders

As far as I'm aware they pretty much knew the positions of the landings. The naval barrage had concentrated on those areas, and command had (yet again) made the mistake of assuming any forces within those area's would have been liquidated by the shelling.
As for Mustafa & Sanders, they were operating at cross purposes according to some sources. Sanders wanted to draw the Allies into Gallipoli and either wipe them out or else force a protracted engagement (hopefully relieving pressure on the European front, although by all accounts he was more interested in personal glory than any grand strategy). Mustafa (and probably Turkish command) simply wanted them repulsed as soon as possible (most probably so they could concentrate on kicking Russia while it was down, although some historians speculated that if the invasion wasn't speedily contained it may have caused the collapse of the Ottoman government Churchill was so desperate for).

 

[morgoth2005]

Have you seen some of the Victorian depictions of Turks? Look at Balaclava for an idea of how the Anglo/French viewed the Ottomans. They had complete confidence that the Turkish artillery crews in the redoubts would not only stand firm in the face of a Russian cavalry charge, but actually repulse it. They were quite suprised when the crews did the sensible thing and abandoned their position, one commander going so far as to claim it was the high number of 'foreign arabs' distributed among the Turkish crews which was to blame. A kind of romanticising of the early Ottoman Empire and a number of other influences led to the image of the Turkish (and for that matter arabic, they didn't make much distinction between the two)warrior as being some kind of weapon of mass destruction as far as most of Europe was concerned. It was partly the reason the Ottoman Empire lasted as long as it did - the Imperial powers of Europe were still half afraid of the military prowess of the Turks, despite it being quite clear that the Empire was on the verge of collapse.

Funnily enough in the same Balaclava, when the British charged, the Russians held their positions and absolutely slaughtered the Light Brigade.

 

[Archonsod]

Wasn't exactly a slaughter. They took huge casualties, but managed to both destroy the Russian cannon and drive the Russian heavy cavalry even further back.

Difference is, the Russians had cavalry and infantry support, their flanks were protected and they were facing light cavalry. The Turks were stuck in redoubts by themselves facing the full might of Russian heavy cavalry, with infantry support. Being gunners, most were armed with nothing more deadly than a pistol. Yet the allies still believed they would defeat the Russian charge....

 

[morgoth2005]

Oh ok, but in the valley of Death they were facing 10000 Russian infantry so they obviously what have been beaten pretty quickly. What was facing the Turks, the Life Guards, or the Cavalierguards?

 

[Allegro]

The high command would have been aware to be honest.

Of course.

Have you seen some of the Victorian depictions of Turks? Look at Balaclava for an idea of how the Anglo/French viewed the Ottomans. They had complete confidence that the Turkish artillery crews in the redoubts would not only stand firm in the face of a Russian cavalry charge, but actually repulse it. They were quite suprised when the crews did the sensible thing and abandoned their position, one commander going so far as to claim it was the high number of 'foreign arabs' distributed among the Turkish crews which was to blame. A kind of romanticising of the early Ottoman Empire and a number of other influences led to the image of the Turkish (and for that matter arabic, they didn't make much distinction between the two)warrior as being some kind of weapon of mass destruction as far as most of Europe was concerned. It was partly the reason the Ottoman Empire lasted as long as it did - the Imperial powers of Europe were still half afraid of the military prowess of the Turks, despite it being quite clear that the Empire was on the verge of collapse.

Well i dont know much about the Crimean War but i've heard some tales about some Ottoman artillery crew who didnt retreat and fought and died till the last man, perhaps it was a myth? But I saw it on History channel, they dont usually praise non-Americans maybe it was an another stage of the Crimean War. Anyway actually bragging about the enemy incites fear amongst the soldiers and somehow makes them fight harder and fanatical, religion is a big factor here. But in Battle of Gallipoli humanism won the day, it is the only battle i know of that Turks and their enemies showed mercy on each other, there are really some epic events, i believe everyone should learn about them.
 I dont know if they still feared the Turks in early 20th century,but Imperial powers were competing about the division of the Empire which i think was the actual reason for the Empire's breathing. They still had disagreements even after the division of the Empire. Ottoman Empire was totally bankrupt and had become a plaything of western powers, and losing the first Balkan War had been the overkill. They were a shadow in diplomacy, they even couldnt dare to supress Armenian revolts in the fear of western powers. Many of the companies were confiscated, their military equipments were in terrible condition (Sabotages and misguidances done on purpose by British officers who were there for training helped it too).

I'm not sure about landmines, but they did use sea mines. They claimed two British battleships in the bombardment before the landings (one of the reasons the shelling  was called off).

Yes they used sea mines and it really helped.

As far as I'm aware they pretty much knew the positions of the landings. The naval barrage had concentrated on those areas, and command had (yet again) made the mistake of assuming any forces within those area's would have been liquidated by the shelling.
As for Mustafa & Sanders, they were operating at cross purposes according to some sources. Sanders wanted to draw the Allies into Gallipoli and either wipe them out or else force a protracted engagement (hopefully relieving pressure on the European front, although by all accounts he was more interested in personal glory than any grand strategy). Mustafa (and probably Turkish command) simply wanted them repulsed as soon as possible (most probably so they could concentrate on kicking Russia while it was down, although some historians speculated that if the invasion wasn't speedily contained it may have caused the collapse of the Ottoman government Churchill was so desperate for).

I really dont think that it was possible for them to know the landing positions before it happened, best thing to do for a defender is to cover the most suitable spots for a landing. Therefore it is a known fact here that Mustafa Kemal and Von Sanders often disputed.
The fact which i am going to tell now should clear the things out better, yes Sanders and Kemal had different purposes because Sanders was a Prussian (thus a German) and Mustafa Kemal was a Turk who strongly opposed the decision of joining the WW1. The benefits of Germany was prior to one while safety of the Turkish soil was to other. And keep in mind that Germans didnt really care about the Ottomans, they just wanted them to take some of the "aggro" on themselves. Middle East was a part of their future plans.

 

[ego]

I found this very interesting, thought I'd share. It's about the humane relationship between ANZAC and Turkish troops in Gallipoli, written by an Australian.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww1/anzac/johnny_turk.htm

 

[morgoth2005]

Had a look at the bottom, came out this article is slightly prejudiced towards the Turks. I wouldn't call the genocide of 1 million people, an arduous exodus.

 

[Allegro]

Lol, here we go again. If you've actually read it you would see that the writer actually presents some facts in order to call it an "alleged genocide".
Speaking of prejudices, isnt judging without any researches done and solely relying on just one point of view a prejudice too? 

By the way thanks ago, i've read the first page and it was really great.

 

[ego]

Had a look at the bottom, came out this article is slightly prejudiced towards the Turks. I wouldn't call the genocide of 1 million people, an arduous exodus.

I take it you don't mean prejudiced towards the Turks against ANZACs, in which case your protest is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If that was what you meant though, in spite of the fact that there is no show of bias against ANZACs in the text and that the author is indeed an Australian; ignore this post.

 

[morgoth2005]

No I am saying that the author is biased with the Turks against the Armenians, but forget it, it doesn't matter. I don't want this to get seriously offtopic.

 

[Allegro]

Have you ever thought that world could be biased with Armenians against Turks? Sometimes it's better to remain silent especially if you dont have something new to say.

 

[thesneakster]

Come to think of it, this is why i didn't post about ANZAC day this year. It inevitably turns into a stat slinging fest about minor details. For gods sake, have some respect, and just remember their sacrifices

 

[Allegro]

Yes sorry, we should stay on topic.
I am just tired of every discussion involving Turks transforming into Turkish-Armenian issue. We had a discussion about it here; http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,18021.0.html. Anyone willing to talk about it may post in it's own thread.

Anyway to get back to topic i am asking one of my questions again since no one answered;
Are the acts of chivalry done by both sides during the war known in Australia or New Zealand or do they remember the war with other aspects?

 

[Archonsod]

IIRC there's pretty much plenty of examples of such behaviour in any country involved in the war. Most have a kind of 'urban myth' status, although there are verifiable stories (like the English vs German football match on Christmas Day, 1914. 1966 wasn't a one off! )

 

[Allegro]

- I've read somewhere that in Gallipoli, a soldier could leave the trenches to hang the washed clothes and the enemy wouldnt shoot him.
- ANZAC soldiers threw canned food at Turkish trenches.
- They shared cigarettes and chatted as best as they could during the corpse burying breaks.
- As i mentioned before trenches were very close but neither sides used grenades.
- After a failed ANZAC charge ANZACs retreated back to their trenches but a heavily wounded soldier was left lying on the ground and writhing in agony, Turks put up white flag and a Turkish soldier jumped out of the trench then embraced and carried the ANZAC soldier to the ANZAC trench, both sides stopped fighting and never opened fire on each other again after this event. And as far as i know the wounded soldier survived and his son was/is the mayor of somewhere in Australia.
These are all i can remember at the moment.

 

[Archonsod]

- They shared cigarettes and chatted as best as they could during the corpse burying breaks.

There's similar tales from every front. Both sides would often exchange chocolate, cigarrettes, alcohol and similar luxuries, usually during burial detail. I suspect this kind of 'black market' economy probably had a better performance than that of the countries involved in the war. It's not unusual though - even back in the middle ages you had similar things occuring between sieging forces and the besieged.

- As i mentioned before trenches were very close but neither sides used grenades.

According to most of the accounts of the battles I can find they did use grenades and bombs when clearing the trenches. It wouldn't be normal for them to be deployed unless they were actually storming the trench though, in WW1 such devices needed explicit permission to be deployed.
Mind you, there's a number of 'myths' regarding grenades or bombs being thrown into one trench, picked up and thrown back.

 

[Allegro]

The friendship between ANZACs and Turks began sometime after the battle started, it was an ordinary fight between them UNTIL the smell of the corpses became unbearable and the flies they attracted started causing ilnesses, then both sides agreed to give a break to gather the corpses and bury them, it was when the two sides first contacted each other and it wasnt going to be the last time. From then on they started feeling closer towards eachother. They might have used grenades before their first contact.

 

[Archonsod]

It wasn't unusual. It's not really until World War 2 that  troops were trained to actually hate the enemy. Prior to that it's more a case of the enemy simply being another soldier. If you read some of the letters from the British troops you get the impression that they had a far greater dislike of their officers than they did of the German troops.

 

[Allegro]

It wasnt unusual between similar cultures and religions, what makes battle of Gallipoli so special is that two sides were totally alien to each other, you may see such acts between English and Germans but you cant see it between Germans and Russians. Alien cultures tend to act cruel towards each other but it didnt happen in Gallipoli thats why it is special.

 

[morgoth2005]

It wasnt unusual between similar cultures and religions, what makes battle of Gallipoli so special is that two sides were totally alien to each other, you may see such acts between English and Germans but you cant see it between Germans and Russians. Alien cultures tend to act cruel towards each other but it didnt happen in Gallipoli thats why it is special.

Well not really. Funnily enough the only culture in Europe that the English were content with, were the Russians. And vice versa. They admired the others. It's weird. But that's during peace. Yeah as Arch said, troops began hating each other only during WWII when soldiers would rather kill themselves than surrender, not out of honour but out of fear.